ப.மு.15441/ப்பி1/2015, சீராய்வு மனு இறுதியாணை, 17.05.2023

What the proceedings decide

Proceedings number ப.மு.15441/ப்பி1/2015 dated 17 May 2023 were issued by the Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Tamil Nadu, Chennai 28, under section 56(1) of the Indian Stamp Act. They decide a revision petition against the Dindigul District Registrar's order concerning document P.253/2010.

The document was presented as a partition deed at the Dindigul Joint Sub Registrar Office Number 2. It was dated 10 November 2010, stated a value of Rs.13,94,41,330 and carried stamp duty of Rs.20,000.

Background and earlier assessment

The registration officer treated one participant, Mrs. Jayanthimala, as falling outside the relevant family definition and referred the document to the District Registrar. The District Registrar classified different shares as settlement transactions involving family and non-family members.

The District Registrar assessed:

• Deficit stamp duty of Rs.18,85,864.
• A penalty of Rs.136.

The revision petitioner argued that Mrs. Jayanthimala signed because her husband was unwell, that Mrs. Seethalakshmi had received common family funds, and that the deed was between family members.

Finding about ownership

The Inspector General of Registration examined an earlier settlement document numbered 3596/1917. That document required income from the property to be used for the annual Chitra Pournami festival of Thadikombu Sri Soundararaja Perumal and for constructing a building connected with the charitable purpose.

The earlier document also stated that the property and its income should not be mortgaged or transferred by the persons concerned or their heirs. If no heirs remained to administer the charity, the property was to be held by the temple authorities for the same purpose.

Based on these terms, the proceedings found that:

• The parties to document P.253/2010 had no ownership or co-ownership in the property.
• They had no pre-existing right that could be divided through a partition.
• Classification under Indian Stamp Act Article 58 as a settlement was not appropriate.
• The document must instead be classified as a conveyance under section 2(10) and Article 23, the residue article.

Who may be affected

The decision directly concerns the parties and property covered by pending document P.253/2010. It is also relevant when examining transactions involving land previously dedicated to a temple or charitable purpose, particularly where an earlier deed restricts transfer and the later parties claim partition rights.